A Modest Proposal (Hell's Remix)

[trigger warning: infertility. enjoy this happy otter instead.]

The 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the arrest of a butcher in Philadelphia have caused quite the uptick in articles regarding abortion, which explains why I have seen this argument against abortion several times in the last week: There are infertile women* who desperately want a baby, how dare you have an abortion.

First of all, it's the pregnancy equivalent of starving children in China ("fine, send my food to them"), and just as asinine. I doubt any of these people would suggest that starving people in their neighborhood be allowed to enter their homes without permission and take whatever they want out of their pantries, would they? Um, no. I also sincerely doubt any of these people would support a measure to take organs from people without permission to give them to those dying of organ failure. "What? You have two working kidneys, you only need one. She doesn't have any, don't be selfish."

However, perhaps these prolifers have a point. It's so unfair that some women have unwanted pregnancies while others can't have wanted pregnancies**. But it's not enough to outlaw abortion. After all, most women who go through with an unwanted pregnancy don't give the resulting child up for adoption, they keep it and raise it themselves. That doesn't help infertile people. And prolifers are all about helping the infertile.

So here's my modest proposal: Every five years, we figure out exactly how many infertile people there are in the US who desire children. Currently, that's 7.3 million women***. That's a lot of people, but don't worry, there are (as of 2000) 23 million women between the ages of 20 and 34- prime childbearing (yet adult) years, which means there are (subtracting the infertile total from the general total. rough, I know.) 15.7 million women who are fully capable of providing children for the infertile.

Those 15.7 million women are being terribly selfish by not voluntarily getting pregnant with a child solely for the purposes of giving said child to an infertile woman, and that needs to end. So, every 5 years, we'll have a lottery. 7.3 million fertile women of prime child bearing age will be required to immediately get pregnant, have the baby and give it to an infertile women. Some women may have to do this twice, as prime childbearing yet adult years span 14 years, but don't worry, it's only fair.

No, these women will not be compensated for their trouble. I've never heard of anyone invoking infertility as an argument against abortion state that women with unwanted pregnancies should be compensated for their efforts, so it will be up to you if you are chosen in the lottery. Don't complain, as the possessor of a working reproductive system, it's only your duty.

*I do appreciate the pain of infertility. In fact, I think infertility treatments should be covered by insurance in the US at least to the level infertility treatments are covered in the UK. I am not in any way mocking the pain of infertility, merely the argument that one person's infertility justifies taking away the bodily autonomy of another person.

**Terribly unfair, in fact, however two wrongs don't make a right.

***I have no idea why I can only find this statistic for women. I guess men are never infertile.

Redefining Optimum

homophobia, homosexual, ivf, childless, children, babies, infertile, infertility, lesbian, gay, prop 8, stupid,
I won't bore you with the entire post, mostly because it just makes my stomach hurt, but the salient details in the back story are: Lesbian couple in Scotland wants the same access to government sponsored IVF that hetero couples in the UK enjoy. Government says "go have sex with men." Lesbian couple sues and wins.

Now for emissary's conclusion on all this:

The regrettable part of this story is that the board eventually changed its mind after being sued. It sets a bad precedence for two specific reasons. The first is that it forces the taxpayer money to pay for children who will be given to a home without a mother and a father. The second is that, since IVF is so expensive, the government may not be able to help as many heterosexual couples who could provide a more optimal life for their children.

First of all, it sets a bad precedent, taxpayers will pay, not taxpayer money, and the children will be born in the home, not given to the home.

Now that I've corrected the basic English, let's review emissary's argument. Basically, if the government pays for IVF for homosexuals, less heterosexuals will be able to have babies, and heterosexual couples are automatically better parents.

The first argument is patently false on its face. The UK health care system (socialism!) views infertility the same as any other medical condition and pays for a certain number of treatments over a certain time period. For everyone. If more people need IVF, more IVF will be paid for, they won't ration it any more than they would ration bypass surgery. They may well raise taxes to pay for the increase in IVF, but heteros will still get the same amount of IVF as they always were.

The second argument relies on debunked research into same sex parenting. Hetero couples are not automatically better parents than gay couples. (Research does show that children do better with two parents instead of one, but that has to do with economics and the time available with the child, not the sex of the parents.) According to emissary, a man and a woman are automatically better parents, even if the man is a pedophile and the woman is a junkie. When you find yourself making that argument, you need to admit that you're a homophobe, and that you don't really like children all that much.